Not enough cards for RIT in PLO5, 5-5/10 plo at Venetian
Another interesting one, this time at Venetian:
We play 5card PLO high, I get it all in pre vs another reg, we both have ds Aces, and we agree on 2 boards.
Dealer forgets it’s 5card, is also very quick and we are both not paying attention, so he burns on all streets for the first board, which leads to him only having 4 cards left over for the second board.
1. what are we doing now?
2. how Do you think the floor ruled?
3. what’s the optimal ruling?
11 Replies
Take burn cards, shuffle and deal out second board?
Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
Most likely I'd shuffle in the burns and run the second board however it would normally be done. I'm guessing that they normally do one burn then run both boards with no more burns?
Alternately, if the issue was spotted before the second board was spread, you could restore the stub from the burns, river, and turn in the order they were put out. This should bring the deck back to where it would have been. The only problem with this is it might leave players wondering if it was done in the right order, or simply upset that they would have won the top board as it first appeared.
can you use the last card in the deck there? if so, mix turn and river burns from board one together with the stub, burn once and run out board two
otherwise you'll need more creative solutions
Is there anything wrong with just saying, 'guys, this hand can't be run twice' and simply awarding the pot based on the first runout?
But I think shuffling the burn cards back in is the best solution.
I wasn't at the table for this hand, but I think I played in this game that's being referenced.
I played in a plo5 double board bomb pot at Aria recently where the dealer only had 2 cards left after the turn. Floor ruled there would be no burn for the river.
can you use the last card in the deck there? if so, mix turn and river burns from board one together with the stub, burn once and run out board two
otherwise you'll need more creative solutions
Yeah, floor was first of all difficult to get, and then somewhat …
So we agreed on a gentleman’s solution:
Since my opponent won the first run out with flush, we agreed on 3 quarters for him, done.
Other floor later confirmed to take the burns, shuffle all in, and make 2d board with that
That's a pretty cool solution if equity is close. Good thing the players were cool.
If they were both double suited, and a flush came out on the first board, OP should have had more than 50% equity on the second board due to card removal. But if he agreed to it, certainly ok.
If they were both double suited, and a flush came out on the first board, OP should have had more than 50% equity on the second board due to card removal. But if he agreed to it, certainly ok.
Absolutely correct, I realized that too,
But the other player Ben was a real gentleman and the only other guy giving real action in the game, and I took him for a huge pot earlier in the session, so I was fine was that solution
Cash games should get some wiggle room in spots like this, but usually we are aware of this potential issue when playing with 'too many' Players.
Only other thing I would add is to WASH the cards, not shuffle them as I think you get more randomness out of a wash.
We usually go One Burn, One Board, One more Burn then 2nd Board. GL
Since it was an error to agree to run it twice as it isn’t possible should only use the first board at this point and run it once. The same situation has come up at my home casino and that’s what they ruled.
Since it was an error to agree to run it twice as it isn’t possible should only use the first board at this point and run it once. The same situation has come up at my home casino and that’s what they ruled.
no error at all, we ran it twice in this game multiple times before, the official way to do it is just one burn and then 2 boards ... the dealer just didn't abide by it
